A76 INCOMPLETE RESECTION OF 1-20MM COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Colonoscopy has been used as a screening or surveillance tool for colorectal cancer (CRC), however, a minority of patients develop post-colonoscopy interval CRC. Incomplete resection of colorectal polyps is thought to be a major cause of post-colonoscopy interval CRC. Aims We were interested in studying the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and factors associated with incomplete resection in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL of all studies reporting on IRR of polyps 1-20mm published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were: Inclusion of IBD cohorts; referrals for difficult polypectomy; polyp size >20mm; endoscopic submucosal dissection; conference abstracts; non-english language. Primary outcome was histologic IRR for polypectomies. Secondary outcomes included IRR for all studies; IRR for polyps 1-10mm and 10-20mm; IRR with or without submucosal injection; IRR based on assessment method of completeness; IRR for different polypectomy methods. Results 6148 records were identified through initial search and 37 studies with a total of 11962 polyps were included in our quantitative analysis. Histologic IRR for polypectomies (snare and forceps) was 10.54% (95%CI 8.56–12.53). IRR for all included studies was 9.05% (95%CI 7.54–10.56). IRR was lower for polyps 1-10mm than polyps 10-20mm; 8.85% (95%CI 7.27–10.44) vs 18.08% (95%CI 10.30–25.87). IRR was statistically significantly lower when only evaluated using imaging enhanced endoscopy (IEE) (0.69%; 95%CI 0.02–1.35) compared to post polypectomy margin biopsies (7.19%; 95%CI 5.39–8.99). Histologic IRR for snare polypectomy (8.79%; 95%CI 6.96–10.62) was lower than histologic IRR for forceps polypectomy (17.75; 95%CI 10.49–25.01). Conclusions Incomplete resection of 1-20mm colorectal polyps occurs in a significant proportion of polypectomies. Incomplete resection occurs more frequently in larger (10-20mm) polyps. Visual inspection with IEE after polypectomy underestimates IRR in comparison to post polypectomy biopsies. Snare polypectomy had lower IRR when compared with forceps. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".